52 replies to this topic

[Sephlock]

^ That's crazy talk.

[Escef]

Sephlock, on 16 May 2013 - 04:07 PM, said:

And changing that would be "a violation of common sense!" After all, its like the flintlock!

So, are you going to make some kind of intelligent response, or are you going to continue trolling?

[Arcturious]

One thing a lot of people fail to realise is that there is a difference between Dps and effective Dps.

All the Dps in the world doesn't matter on the UAC5, when it jams on you and your effective Dps drops to zero.

Or someone is 1000m away and your AC20 just can't hit them.

Or your heat is at 99% and you need that last AC10 shot but it would overheat you.

The range buff to the AC5 is a big DPS buff. For every single shot over 540m away, thanks to the way falloff works.

The AC5 fits its niche of consistent, ranged damage at low heat / high ammo per ton values.

As someone earlier in the thread pointed out, damage is eventually limited by the ammo you took with you. The simple fact is, that for the same weight and slots as a UAC5, you get 60 shots to its 25!

That is a massive effective damage potential right there.

It is a highly undervalued weapon, mostly as it fits a use scenario that many don't play - that of overall match damage potential.

With good aim and consistent hits it is an excellent performing weapon.

[Kaylos Thex]

I started this thread wondering why the AC5...well, to me it feels less useful.

I can bang away with an AC2, or I can mother my shots for high-ish alpha with the AC10. I can blaze away with a UAC5, but the start/stop mechanics of it means that on smaller mechs, its not as viable to me.

For the smaller ballistics mechs, I feel that the AC5 would find a home alongside the AC2. But the jump in rate of fire seems bigger from the AC2 to the AC5, than the AC5 does to the AC10.

I need a reason to take a AC5 over the UAC5 i guess.

[Sephlock]

Escef, on 16 May 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

So, are you going to make some kind of intelligent response, or are you going to continue trolling?

I responded directly to what was said, and the response to that response was a claim that I was putting words in someone's mouth...

Then I showed exactly what that person said, making it blindingly obvious how dumb that person was.

What more is there to be said?

[Sephlock]

Sephlock, on 16 May 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

But haven't you heard? Any attempt to make poopy weapons viable is a violation of sacred law!

Escef, on 16 May 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

It's a violation of common sense. You don't see modern Armies trying to keep the flintlock viable, do you?

So because the weapon system is outdated in canon (albeit still in use- presumably due to cost/ubiquity) it should be poopy in this game! That's perfect logic!

[Escef]

Sephlock, on 16 May 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

So because the weapon system is outdated in canon (albeit still in use- presumably due to cost/ubiquity) it should be poopy in this game! That's perfect logic!

Except that isn't what I said. And if you weren't so busy cherry picking lines and trying to misrepresent me, you also might have noticed that I've already pointed out, numerous times, that twin AC5 compare well to an AC20 or Gauss. Yes, they're behind the curve compared to UAC5, and they should be. Arguing otherwise is likely saying an 200MMX CPU should be a viable alternative to my machine's quadcore.

What I find especially strange is that when it comes to the AC5, you think it should be buffed to be more competitive (I don't think it needs it, but I'm not opposed to it), but I don't see you saying we need to buff single heat sinks. And I've yet to see you give any kind of reason for buffing the AC5. I mean, really, in 2 seconds I can nail someone for 20 points of damage with twin AC5 at 540 meters, and if they return fire with an AC20 at the same time as my first shot they've only done 10. 15 if they were using a Gauss. And either way I still have 2 seconds to get to cover before their weapon cycles back up. I may even be able to sneak in a parting shot if they haven't taken cover themselves.

I am very tired with you misrepresenting me. So, talk some facts, make a coherent argument in favor of your position. Y'know, instead of lie about mine? And if that's too complex for you, please wait for someone to take up your side of the debate that isn't a total jackwad.

[Sephlock]

That is exactly what you said, so... yeah...

Sephlock, on 16 May 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

But haven't you heard? Any attempt to make poopy weapons viable is a violation of sacred law!

Escef, on 16 May 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

It's a violation of common sense.

As far as single heat sinks go, what about them do you think should be changed, and in what manner?

[Escef]

Sephlock, on 16 May 2013 - 09:29 PM, said:

As far as single heat sinks go, what about them do you think should be changed, and in what manner?

Nothing. They're crappy. They're outclassed. Obsolete. I'm just wondering why you aren't railing for them to be buffed. They're in the game, mechs come with them. Why are you on a damnable crusade about the AC5, so much so that you seek to twist my words and misrepresent me, but single heat sinks are fine?

[Rytheo]

Escef, on 16 May 2013 - 08:53 PM, said:

Except that isn't what I said. And if you weren't so busy cherry picking lines and trying to misrepresent me, you also might have noticed that I've already pointed out, numerous times, that twin AC5 compare well to an AC20 or Gauss. Yes, they're behind the curve compared to UAC5, and they should be. Arguing otherwise is likely saying an 200MMX CPU should be a viable alternative to my machine's quadcore.

What I find especially strange is that when it comes to the AC5, you think it should be buffed to be more competitive (I don't think it needs it, but I'm not opposed to it), but I don't see you saying we need to buff single heat sinks. And I've yet to see you give any kind of reason for buffing the AC5. I mean, really, in 2 seconds I can nail someone for 20 points of damage with twin AC5 at 540 meters, and if they return fire with an AC20 at the same time as my first shot they've only done 10. 15 if they were using a Gauss. And either way I still have 2 seconds to get to cover before their weapon cycles back up. I may even be able to sneak in a parting shot if they haven't taken cover themselves.

I am very tired with you misrepresenting me. So, talk some facts, make a coherent argument in favor of your position. Y'know, instead of lie about mine? And if that's too complex for you, please wait for someone to take up your side of the debate that isn't a total jackwad.

It really doesn't matter how any weapon, mech or part relates to anything in fluff though? Would you prefer trying to aim on a little 360 degree field of view rectangular strip below the your forward camera? Do you want your pilots vision to get blurry after a big hit or become less and less responsive to the point of not reacting as your heat goes up and stays up? There are a million little inconvieniences that the game glosses over that should technically exist in the game as it is portrayed in fluff in the name of fun. Buffing guns that as of now only exist as a trap to those less knowledgeable in the name of greater possible variety in mech builds is a really good thing that the devs need to pursue more passionately, it doesn't matter what the fluff says or what the table top rules say.

As to your hypothetical twin AC 5 vs a gauss rifle or AC 20 you seem to forget that burst damage matters, for you to put out that 20 damage you need to see your enemy for a full 2 seconds and that damage has the potential to be scattered all over their mech, a gauss user can pop their head out for a fraction of a second, score a hit and pop back into cover, and an AC 20 user wouldn't be slugging it out at that range theyd either attempt to cross the gap or back up and come around a different path, the fact that their dps is more sustained is a liability and therefore needs a bigger damage buff compared to more bursty options.

And yes you should be forced to actually make a choice between using double and single heat sinks in game, it shouldnt be a simple oh well I have the money to buy double so ill buy double 100% of the time, that removes an otherwise strategic choice when mech building and also puts up a barrier of entry for newer players who do not yet have the money necessary to buy those upgrades, your fluff based defence is really dumb and shallow imo.

[Escef]

Rytheo, on 16 May 2013 - 10:02 PM, said:

As to your hypothetical twin AC 5 vs a gauss rifle or AC 20 you seem to forget that burst damage matters...

I have forgotten no such thing. Hell I even mentioned that it was very likely that the opponent was already looking for cover. That kind of shoot-n-scoot is very common. But I don't often see them expose themselves for less than 2 seconds unless they're pop-tarting. Which is common, but not nearly as much as the whiners say it is.

Rytheo, on 16 May 2013 - 10:02 PM, said:

And yes you should be forced to actually make a choice between using double and single heat sinks in game, it shouldnt be a simple oh well I have the money to buy double so ill buy double 100% of the time, that removes an otherwise strategic choice when mech building and also puts up a barrier of entry for newer players who do not yet have the money necessary to buy those upgrades, your fluff based defence is really dumb and shallow imo.

I seriously do not see how the choice between single and double sinks is strategic. I have one mech with singles, it packs a Gauss and 2 MLs. I didn't go for doubles to save C-Bills. As for my "fluff based defense", the AC5 is a very old weapon in the game, and the UAC5 was introduced expressly to obsolete it. And based upon my personal experience using the AC5, I do not think it needs a buff.

I have said multiple times that the AC5 is a DPS weapon, which puts it at a disadvantage in the current meta. I have said multiple times that if you use them in pairs you can do some serious damage. I have said multiple times that they should not be used singly. I have said multiple times that I do not think the AC5 needs a buff.

I have never said the DPS is a reliable tactic right now. I have never said I was opposed to the AC5 getting buff. (There's a world of difference between being opposed to something and saying it is unneeded.) I have never said it should be removed from the game.

And I am very tired of people trying to attack me based on deliberate misrepresentations of my words. For example, Sephlock going off and quoting 1 line, and ignoring the following paragraph. (That's classy, BTW, I love it when people pull that crap. :| ) I am also very tired of having people attack me based upon their assumption that I espouse positions that I never have.

[Kaylos Thex]

Well I do not believe that the UAC5 is a replacement for an AC5 any more than the LB10X is a replacement for the AC10.
Nor are pulse lasers replacements for regular lasers.

Back on topic though, I still find the AC5 underperforming when contrasted to AC2's and 10's.

I stand by my premise that for the sake of balance, the rate of fire should be increased to make it a desireable choice.

[Escef]

Kaylos Thex, on 18 May 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

Well I do not believe that the UAC5 is a replacement for an AC5 any more than the LB10X is a replacement for the AC10.
Nor are pulse lasers replacements for regular lasers.

THe LB10X absolutely was meant to obsolete the AC10. What stops it from doing so in MW games is the lack of slug rounds, we are forced to use LBX cluster rounds. If we had the option of solid slug for the LB10X no one would use the AC10.

As for pulse lasers, they were never meant to obsolete their non-pulse cousins, and never have.